Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Not much more to say on this. Ridiculous idea from a ridiculous human being.


    (Original post by Chrysisure)
    Replacing human rights ≠ abolishing human rights.
    Tory's have long talked about removing human rights, I've yet to see what (more like if) they will replace it with.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chrysisure)
    Replacing human rights ≠ abolishing human rights.
    Oh, sorry.

    * abolishing the universally accepted Human Rights Act and replacing it with a more appropriate one, as decided by Our Glorious Leaders

    There's no point having a Human Rights Act if the Tories (or whoever else) can amend it willy-nilly whenever it becomes an inconvenience for them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    Tory's have long talked about removing human rights, I've yet to see what (more like if) they will replace it with.
    Not a reason to jump to conclusions, though, is it? Scepticism is justified, sure, but believing the proposal is fueled by ulterior motives is presumptuous. There is a valid argument for both sides to be had.

    (Original post by JordanL_)
    Oh, sorry.

    * abolishing the universally accepted Human Rights Act and replacing it with a more appropriate one, as decided by Our Glorious Leaders

    There's no point having a Human Rights Act if the Tories (or whoever else) can amend it willy-nilly whenever it becomes an inconvenience for them.
    And you don't think the EU has the power to do the same? I'm unsure of why you trust undemocratically-elected ECHR officials acting in the interests of continental security as opposed to the democratically-elected Tories (granted, they aren't the most trustworthy), who at least (supposedly) have national security as their primary concern.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chrysisure)
    Not a reason to jump to conclusions, though, is it? Scepticism is justified, sure, but believing the proposal is fueled by ulterior motives is presumptuous. There is a valid argument for both sides to be had.



    And you don't think the EU has the power to do the same? I'm unsure of why you trust undemocratically-elected ECHR officials acting in the interests of continental security as opposed to the democratically-elected Tories (granted, they aren't the most trustworthy), who at least (supposedly) have national security as their primary concern.
    I'm not an expert in the ECHR, but I'd assume that making amendments would require the approval of multiple states. I highly doubt it's as easy as amending legislation belonging to a single country.

    I'd trust undemocratically-elected officials over the government put in power by the British electorate any day. The EU has supported Britain's interests, and my own, far better than any government we've ever had (in my lifetime). British Parliament is an absolute joke right now, it's like a **** Game of Thrones. You don't see any of this pettiness in the EU.

    Them claiming to have national security as their primary concern makes it even worse. How far would you allow them to go in the name of "national security"?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    I'm not an expert in the ECHR, but I'd assume that making amendments would require the approval of multiple states. I highly doubt it's as easy as amending legislation belonging to a single country.
    I am not sure how you can argue that our laws ought to be decided by a third party that is far less, if even at all, familiar with our political affairs. The European Court of Justice is also bound by the ECHR, meaning they also have judicial authority and hence decide upon individual deportation cases, for example.

    How can one rather forego sovereignty in return for a falsifiable sense of greater security; surely an exploitation of human rights by the EU, albeit less likely, would be far less opposable than if it were done so by the UK government?

    (Original post by JordanL_)
    I'd trust undemocratically-elected officials over the government put in power by the British electorate any day. The EU has supported Britain's interests, and my own, far better than any government we've ever had (in my lifetime).
    In what ways is this true?
    • The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which was pursued by the EU and successfully passed, threatens workers' conditions as well as the public provision of the NHS;
    • Cameron's initial negotiation proposals for EU reform were compromised ultimately to the point of total negation;
    • The free movement of labour, as outlined in the Lisbon Treaty, has enabled uncontrolled mass immigration and the subsequent saturation of the low-skilled labour market and compression of the average wage rate, among numerous other social consequences arising from lack of cultural integration;
    • The weakening euro has made all members of the eurozone a weaker buyer of our exports, effectively reducing the benefit we receive by being a part of the free market;
    • Our trade with non-EU members is hampered by an EU-imposed export tariff, further reducing the UK's competitiveness in the global export market;
    • We are forced to pay an annual EU bill totalling several billion, in addition to our £33m a day membership fee, despite being a net positive contributor;
    • The Common Fisheries Policy, as well as other trade protectionist policies designed by the EU to regulate the market, have led to hindered growth of domestic industries whilst strengthening foreign ones.
    I could go on, but I think I've made my case.

    I am not saying you should blindly trust our own government because they are undoubtedly acting in the interests of its own people, but likewise, do not vilify them in favour of the EU when you likely have less idea about the EU's operations than those of domestic government.

    (Original post by JordanL_)
    British Parliament is an absolute joke right now, it's like a **** Game of Thrones. You don't see any of this pettiness in the EU.
    You don't see much of what goes on in the EU to begin with. How many of the officials can you name from the top of your head? Because for me, it's not a lot.

    From what I've observed, EU parliament appears to be an echochamber wherein everyone (besides the eurosceptics) offers their robotic input, all the while struggling with a sizeable language barrier. Is it less petty? Perhaps, but you cannot say it's any more productive than British parliament.

    (Original post by JordanL_)
    Them claiming to have national security as their primary concern makes it even worse. How far would you allow them to go in the name of "national security"?
    What would you rather they state their primary concern is...?

    You cannot cower in fear, anticipating an Orwellian dystopia that is void of all human rights. Did we have human rights prior to the EU? Yes, we did. Of course, society has changed since then, and amendments would need to be made, but to assume the government is certain to exploit its own country's human rights when given the opportunity is unfounded and exceedingly pessimistic.

    It's genuinely quite disheartening that the electorate trusts a foreign, covert bureaucracy to run the country better than its own elected government. I'm baffled as to why you think we are completely and utterly subservient to our government. A blatant infringement upon human rights would not go unnoticed by the electorate, nor by the United Nations Human Rights Council, who also oversee national human rights legislation.

    I'd really recommend watching some of Nigel's speeches in the European Parliament. This one in particular is very insightful:

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    May, who is supporting the remain campaign, said: “If we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its court.”

    She actually has a point. The leave campaign often goes on about these things, but leaving the EU won't actually achieve the wanted human rights changes. Not that I agree with either goal, but this debate has been sorely lacking.
    (Original post by Dez)
    She's right, the ECHR does make the UK less secure. Does that mean we should get rid of it? Absolutely not. Security is not the only responsibility our government has, we should not throw away something as important and fundamental as the ECHR just because it has some minor security implications.
    (Original post by Josb)
    I would support this. The UK would still be able to admit refugees, but it would also be able to deport those who do not deserve this status.
    I was wondering how far down I would have to read before someone pointed out the bleeding obvious. As an EU signatory we are obligated to be a signatory to the Convention and ECHR. They go hand in hand. How any of you did not know this is frightening to say the least

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    She doesn't have a point though because you cannot be a member of the EU without being a member of the ECHR. All members of the EU are automatically signed up to the ECHR.

    That's a basic legal position and it's incredibly telling that our own Home Secreatry does not know that
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    That abolishing our human rights is a step toward totalitarianism?
    This is somewhat of a nonsense post.

    To start with, human rights are defined by the UN treaty on such matters. This treaty will not be touched by any British government because the UN is both flaccid and they don't want to look like a pariah state.

    The ECHR is a court which enforces a whole other set of human rights and while skeptics make too much of it (it rules with us on more than 90% of occasions) there are some articles (like the right to a family life) which should be repealed. May's desire is to withdraw from the ECHR and create a British bill of rights which is basically the same but missing a few bits and would be enforced by our own supreme court.

    To suggest that she's taking away your human rights is absurd.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    She doesn't have a point though because you cannot be a member of the EU without being a member of the ECHR. All members of the EU are automatically signed up to the ECHR.

    That's a basic legal position and it's incredibly telling that our own Home Secreatry does not know that
    I don't think this is right. Can you point me to the provision of the Treaties which says so?

    Article 53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union merely records the fact that at the date it was adopted all members of the EU had acceded to the ECHR, not that they had to do so.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chrysisure)
    Replacing human rights ≠ abolishing human rights.
    This.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    This is somewhat of a nonsense post.

    To start with, human rights are defined by the UN treaty on such matters. This treaty will not be touched by any British government because the UN is both flaccid and they don't want to look like a pariah state.

    The ECHR is a court which enforces a whole other set of human rights and while skeptics make too much of it (it rules with us on more than 90% of occasions) there are some articles (like the right to a family life) which should be repealed. May's desire is to withdraw from the ECHR and create a British bill of rights which is basically the same but missing a few bits and would be enforced by our own supreme court.

    To suggest that she's taking away your human rights is absurd.
    The ECHR is not a UN treaty not created by one and none of the UN treaties have domestic effect in UK law.
    A 'British bill of rights' is a nonsense idea. The ECHR is by far and away the best human rights regime, harmonising protection in Europe to a great extent.
    Following the horrors of the world wars, Hunan rights should be above politics and not be at the whims of populist leaders.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.theguardian.com/culture/v...e-for-us-video

    I'm going to put this right here.

    Martin Niemöller's poem comes to mind here. There are people here supporting May for taking away the rights of refugees/asylum seekers which is vile in and of itself but when rights are taken away they are never given back without a fight. The Tories have already started gutting labour rights with their un-democratic trade union bill, now they have it in for schools and doctors. Every time Tories come in to power they bring about strikes and deregulation. Still the nasty party in my opinion.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not sure

    I like my Human Rights like I like my film studios...


    ... Universally declared
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    It is absurd and hysterical to draw the comparison you just drew, yes.
    What with Theresa 'Jackboot' May? Well nothing she wouldn't do, but nar it seems fair enough to me and i'm not making this up, she scares my livestock.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The ECHR is not a UN treaty not created by one and none of the UN treaties have domestic effect in UK law.
    A 'British bill of rights' is a nonsense idea. The ECHR is by far and away the best human rights regime, harmonising protection in Europe to a great extent.
    Following the horrors of the world wars, Hunan rights should be above politics and not be at the whims of populist leaders.
    Your far too afraid of war.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Your far too afraid of war.
    Been in a few have you?
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by hovado)
    Been in a few have you?
    No, but people seem to be under impression that giving people a right to a family life will somehow stop one.

    If Russia starts taking chunks of eastern Europe or an ISIS like state tries to invade then the ECHR won't make a blind bit of difference.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    That abolishing our human rights is a step toward totalitarianism?
    It moves in that direction yes. China would be a lot less authoritarian if people had human rights.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Hunan rights should be above politics and not be at the whims of populist leaders.
    Human rights are not above politics. When they are stretched to their current extent, they address fundamentally political matters. It's just that these political matters are resolved by European judges, in, by the way, a complete shambles of a court, rather than British politicians, or indeed British judges*.

    On the Court, and the application of human rights instruments to particular domestic issues, you may find this an interesting read. I assume the author is beyond branding as 'jackbooted'. http://www.brandeis.edu/ethics/pdfs/...3/hoffmann.pdf

    But, apparently, we cannot have a free and just country without European judges telling us that prisoners cannot be denied the 'right' to vote, human rights apparently now extending to purely civic matters such as voting.

    *Except in a capacity beneath that of the ECtHR.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    This is somewhat of a nonsense post.

    To start with, human rights are defined by the UN treaty on such matters. This treaty will not be touched by any British government because the UN is both flaccid and they don't want to look like a pariah state.

    The ECHR is a court which enforces a whole other set of human rights and while skeptics make too much of it (it rules with us on more than 90% of occasions) there are some articles (like the right to a family life) which should be repealed. May's desire is to withdraw from the ECHR and create a British bill of rights which is basically the same but missing a few bits and would be enforced by our own supreme court.

    To suggest that she's taking away your human rights is absurd.
    But she is trying to take away our human rights, namely the right to a family life (opinions on its validity are not particularly relevant), you have admitted as much.

    Also the ECHR isn't meant to stop wars, it is supposed to ensure that everyone in Europe has their human rights upheld, no matter who tries to treat them otherwise.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    No, but people seem to be under impression that giving people a right to a family life will somehow stop one.

    If Russia starts taking chunks of eastern Europe or an ISIS like state tries to invade then the ECHR won't make a blind bit of difference.
    I would hope that the concept of human rights is ingrained in people to the extent it makes it harder for political forces like fascism or communism that ignore individual rights to resurface in the future in Europe. In fact Britain people were always better at laughing at fascists whilst our European friends were gathering behind them. ECHR was largely us telling Europe to not do that **** again. If right to family life existed and was enforced in the middle-east ISIS would not be able to kill gay people.

    Russia and ISIS do not adhere to human rights. Ideally in the far furitre I would hope the middle-east has human rights, as does Russia, China and so on. It doesn't help when people like May want to chip away at the internationalist aspects of human rights (which is a major point of them).

    BornBlue is talking about war within Europe. The European convention of human rights was brought in as a response to the first half of the 20th century in Europe. To make it harder to push a whole group of people into gas chambers. Chipping away at the human rights for certain groups, like foreign brown people, is the first baby step towards making it possible to convince the population that it is a good idea to put them in gas chambers.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.